Ritmo Magazine Cover + Interview

Description

Born in Vigo, his journey through London, Birmingham, Houston, or Budapest has shaped a multidisciplinary personality with his Francesco Mauritzi violin (1835), approaching both Baroque music and contemporary creation. "My profile has expanded beyond the interpretive dimension, which has always been and will remain constant, like the four albums released in the last year and a half, to encompass a profile of artistic research. I am about to publish my second book in English, titled Choreomata: Performance and Performativity after AI, with Taylor & Francis, in collaboration with Marek Poliks. Other areas of sonic research are also of interest to me."

In addition to his extensive individual, orchestral, and theoretical training, he is a founding and active member of several chamber music groups, such as Vertixe Sonora, pursuing an intense international career as a performer and pedagogue. Currently, he works as an Assistant Professor in Hong Kong, and his practice explores the connections between different artistic disciplines, from music and dance to video art and interactive sound installations. As a violinist, Roberto Alonso follows four principles: "first, an honest relationship with the instrument and repertoire; second, a vision of the instrument focused on the idea of sound as a medium to sculpt, where technique is not an end in itself; third, a perspective on live performances as the ideal format for the communicative 'game' that is music; and fourth, a challenging attitude that not only does not fear failure but embraces it as a necessary element within any process of creative growth."

Subject

Before the curtain rises, how would you define Roberto Alonso Trillo?

As a versatile musician and artist who divides his time between performance, academic research, and pedagogy.

And let's set the scene, where is Roberto Alonso Trillo currently?

He is in a period of professional and artistic expansion. After four years split between Hong Kong and Europe, his profile has expanded beyond the realm of performance, which has always been and will continue to be a constant (as evidenced by the four albums released in the last year and a half). His work now encompasses artistic research (he is about to publish his second book in English, titled "Choreomata: Performance and Performativity after AI," co-authored with Marek Poliks and published by Taylor & Francis) and other fields of sound research.

Let's talk about those albums, ranging from Italian Baroque violin sonatas to contemporary creation and experimentation...

Yes, the truth is that the albums showcase different facets of my profile as a violinist and sound creator. First, there's the album "Semina Rerumque" released with Ibs Classical, where I collaborate with Bráis González (harpsichord) and Aglaya González (viola d'amore) in a journey through the violin sonatas and basso continuo of the Italian Baroque. Second, there's "Debris," an album released by Creotz Ediciones that features electronic works created using waste products from an artificial intelligence sound generation system trained on terabytes of my recordings. The album includes collaborations with diverse and interesting composers such as Mariam Gviniashvili and Kyoka, among others. Third, there's a very personal project that resulted from my collaboration with Marek Poliks over the past few years in developing a machine learning system that can be used as an interactive agent for live music creation. This project was recorded during a residency at the Orpheus Institute in Ghent and was released by Neos at the beginning of 2023. And finally, there's a monographic album also released by Neos, focusing on the work of the magnificent Colombian composer Camilo Méndez, in which I participated as a member of Vertixe Sonora, and it will be released this June.

Exactly, what is the theme of your new publication Choreomata: Performance and Performativity after AI?

The book brings together critical and innovative perspectives from prominent international scholars on the fascinating relationship between Artificial Intelligence and performative arts. Its fundamental premise is that both humans and computationally designed forces are involved in an intertwined and mutual performance of Artificial Intelligence. "Choreomata" is articulated as a network of interdisciplinary thinking, combining theoretical inquiry from fields such as philosophy (e.g., Reza Negarestani or Keith Tilford), information theory and computer science (e.g., AA Cavia), with practical case studies from visual arts (e.g., Refik Anadol), dance (e.g., Catie Cuan), music (e.g., Alexander Schubert), and social theory (e.g., Luciana Parisi or Tiziana Terranova). I am the editor of the volume together with Marek Poliks and contribute with two chapters that explore through a combination of practical reflections based on my own artistic experiences and as a researcher, but also theoretical-speculative reflections. On the one hand, we propose that generative artificial intelligence, as a set of technological and techno-ideological platforms, does not represent a change in terms of social reorganization but an acceleration of an ongoing process of the dissolution of postmodern subjectivity. On the other hand, I propose a non-anthropomorphic vision of the body beyond the cybernetic concept of organic-mechanical hybrid assemblage and the contingency and complexity of the fractured postmodern body that emerges from Gilbert Simondon or Gilles Deleuze.

Since moving to London in 2001 and your current activity as a professor in Hong Kong, in between, your career has continued to advance, but surely you have sacrificed a lot from an early age. Have you ever felt tempted to give up something in music for a "more normal" life?

The reference to the possibility of a normal life has been a constant in my trajectory, as I understand it is for most artists, but for me, it is a purely statistical concept. Normality always depends on the context, and art typically moves by a drive that seeks to transcend mediocrity.

Do things look different from Hong Kong?

Even in a globalized and homogenized world connected in real time by what has been defined as logistical capitalism (Ned Rossiter) or platform capitalism (Nick Srnicek), there are still important cultural divergences. Hong Kong is a unique reality as a hinge between the two dominant models and their different cosmogonies and worldviews. I would define it, as a postcolonial reality, as an Asian London (where I lived for several years) permeated by certain collectivist and Confucian values from the Chinese model. It is also the ultimate expression of that 24/7 capitalism, for better or worse. A city that never sleeps, where everything happens at the speed of light, everything emerges and fades away quickly, it is a place of transit and crossing between different cultures with an identity that arises from a slow dynamic sedimentation. It is also a city with an enviable cultural life, from major contemporary art museums (such as M+) to a world-class orchestra. For me, Hong Kong has been a transformative experience.

Not only does he address Baroque repertoire with his Francesco Mauritzi violin (1835), but he also "dares" to venture into contemporary creation, as we have seen in his discography...

My repertoire spans from early Baroque to contemporary music. Currently, for example, I am preparing a recording of Brahms' First Sonata and Franck's Sonata. However, it is true that contemporary music has played a fundamental role in my career. Firstly, working with living composers is an extremely enriching experience that helps us better understand music from the past, the role of notation as a means, and scores as mnemonic mechanisms, etc. On the other hand, I am fortunate to be a member of Vertixe Sonora, one of the most interesting ensembles specializing in contemporary music on the international scene today.

What are the characteristics or singularities of Vertixe Sonora?

Vertixe Sonora is an extremely dynamic ensemble that functions as a cultural platform and aims to be a catalyst for new music worldwide. It is an ensemble that focuses on working directly with composers to premiere works continuously, with a total of more than 290 world premieres by 220 composers from 46 countries in the last decade.

It explores the connections between different artistic disciplines, from music and dance to video art and interactive sound installations. Does this global approach prevent the performer from being confined? Does this diversity enrich you?

In my case, the connections between different artistic disciplines have served as a source of inspiration for many interdisciplinary projects and ideas of various kinds. I think of music and performance not only as what has been defined as a "figure of sound," but as a more complex, multimodal, and multisensory reality. I believe that sound is just a trope of a much more complex phenomenon that includes tactile, spatial, material, and vibratory sensations, but it has become a limiting apriorism in musicological discourses closely linked to the notion of fidelity (to a score, an interpretation, an idea, etc.). Music as a cultural technology exists beyond the reach of conceptual language or symbolic systems, not as a one-dimensional reality but as a network of practices, ideas, and objects. Inspiration transcends disciplinary boundaries.

And Artificial Intelligence in music, is it a real, tangible option, or should it be manipulable by the human mind?

Although it is widely used as a catch-all concept, the term currently encompasses different realities and approaches to the algorithmic replication of "intelligent" processes. The first problem when discussing AI, in my opinion, is conceptual, that is, how we define human intelligence or intelligences. Catherine Malabou has explored how the concept gained popularity in the late 19th century, moving away from the central idea of reason in the Enlightenment, as a measurable reality within positivist discourses in certain scientific disciplines. Reza Negarestani questions whether intelligence is solely a human quality and speaks of a universal intelligence in which we are mere participants. For me, technology represents an extension of the corporeal or exosomatization (I think of Bernard Stiegler here), channeled through the plasticity and adaptation of both our biological and mental or intellectual dimensions. Artificial Intelligence thus becomes a post-social consciousness, expressing the irreducibility of intelligence(s) to a set of processes occurring within individualized minds. Its current potential in terms of symbolic representation and digitalizability is immense. But there are other worlds. Precisely, Archon, the project I have developed with Marek Poliks and published by NEOS this year, is a response to your question. It is a machine learning environment that responds to real-time audio input with an indefinite number of sonic behaviors controlled by a behavioral engine governed by non-linear relationships (e.g., from imitation or accompaniment to the generation of radically different material or silence) through a number x of audio channels. Archon thus becomes what has been defined as an adaptable virtual musical agent. There is still much to be done in this field, but it is a glimpse of what may become possible.

Roberto Alonso has three roles: performer, researcher, and pedagogue. Let's take it step by step, what are the premises of Roberto Alonso the violinist performer?

First, an honest relationship with the instrument and the repertoire. Second, a vision of the instrument focused on the idea of sound as a medium to be sculpted, where technique is not an end in itself. Third, a view of live performance as the ideal format for the communicative "play" that music is. Fourth, a challenging attitude that not only does not fear failure but embraces it as a necessary element in any process of creative growth.

Who are your violinistic models?

It's difficult to make a selection since there are many, and I imagine they all have elements in common. I can talk about classical figures like David Oistrakh for his sound and presence, Christian Ferras for his creative approach, and Ginette Neveu for her combination of both. In subsequent generations, figures like Gidon Kremer for his contributions to contemporary music or Oleg Kagan. Among current violinists, those who combine technical mastery with a certain creative freedom, such as Patricia Kopatchinskaja, Leonidas Kavakos, or Alina Ibragimova. And of course, the new and brilliant generation of young Spanish violinists, such as María Dueñas, Raquel Areal, or Javier Comesaña. But I don't like lists, I have found extraordinary and unknown violinists in the most remote corners and in the most unexpected places.

And what about the researcher?

As a researcher, I tend to think laterally, moving between the practical dimension of my work as an artist and purely theoretical speculation. This has led me to adopt multiple approaches in publications in various media, ranging from Leonardo by MIT Press to Organised Sound by Cambridge University Press or my book with Routledge. These approaches cover a post-structuralist reconsideration of

the notion of musical work and authorship, the connections between pedagogy and technology, music and artificial intelligence, historical performance, gestural analysis, and the development of interactive interfaces.

Do both parts, your pedagogical activity and your research, feed into each other?

Certainly, pedagogy is the point of convergence. One creates and learns in order to be able to explain and share.

Is there more interpretative freedom when performing Baroque or contemporary music?

Interpretive freedom can be understood and articulated in different ways. For me, it is an aesthetic attitude that arises from the always fluid relationship between the encoding of music as notation, as a semiotic system, and the act of interpretation with all its historical baggage. If I were to express it differently, I would say that interpretative freedom begins at the fuzzy boundary where a specific notational proposal approaches its limit. That is a space that is articulated differently in Bach or Ferneyhough, but it is always there and always requires a critical positioning from the performer.

And when it comes to the audience, are there ways to reverse their predisposition towards, for example, Bach or Ferneyhough?

Yes, predispositions, no matter how entrenched they may be, can be worked on. This is where the role of the programmer plays a fundamental role, and it is a role that we can and should adopt whenever possible. Performing is not only about communication but also about education, sharing perspectives and unfamiliar spaces with the audience, proposing new approaches. These are slow, longitudinal processes, but the idea is to share a vision and convince or at least make skeptics question.

Because the direct relationship with the composer, as is often the case, will add to or improve the performer's initial predisposition...

As I mentioned earlier, the direct relationship with composers helps deconstruct (to a certain extent) the quasi-mythological relationship with the figure of the composer, which emerged when 19th-century aesthetic narratives turned them into untouchable geniuses and the score into the ultimate representation of their will. This relationship helps us establish a critical relationship of respect and admiration and highlight our fundamental role as performers within the creative process.

Where can one find perfect music, the kind that leaves you speechless?

Perfect music is everywhere. I think of music as an interpretive experience, beyond admiration for the compositional quality of a work (from Monteverdi to Grisey), its capacity to explore and expand the registers of the instrument (from Biber to Lachenmann), or the pleasure associated with listening to it (a concert or a recording). I think of music as a space that I inhabit as a performer, a possibility of action that sometimes takes on magical hues, always situated in time and space. The magic in music is found in those moments that make it worthwhile, moments that resist being semiotized, being expressed in words.

And what is the path that Roberto Alonso dislikes?

The one that doesn't contribute anything, the one that is a sterile repetition of the same.

We're in the summer, is it a time to work in the studio, perform in festivals, prepare projects...?

A little bit of everything this summer: some concerts (I was in Italy in June with Archon, Hong Kong in July), preparing the mentioned album for August, and time for research projects in Europe and Asia. It's also a time to reflect on my medium and long-term plans, to reconsider the general direction of my work for the coming years.